Page 19 of 35 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021222329 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 511

Thread: texas court makes new law out of thin air, negates a right of the people

  1. #271 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Nobody knows because the Senate did not take notes during the re-writing of the BofR. That’s where it was changed in a matter of days.

    But the point escapes you once again, dimwit.

    You asked for documentation from a framer and I gave you documentation from ghe AUTHOR.

    Illiterate fool.
    the point that you're obviously trying to ignore is that the senate did not write the bill of rights..........we the people did and WE did not include it in there.

    why can't you follow logic, you idiotic cuck
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  2. #272 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    only fucking russo bot holes say the SCOTUS is not the final word
    no, only illiterate inbred pieces of statist freedom hating trash refuse to acknowledge that we the people are the final word
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  3. #273 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post


    More “if/would” fantasy from an illiterate moron. Name an “if/would” that has ever occurred, idiot. Why do you cretins have to invent your own “realities”?

    Fool.
    just one? if the USA drops a nuke on japan, would they surrender in WW2..............you lose, again.

    don't you ever get tired of the illogical fallacies you try to post to justify your idiocy?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  4. #274 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    You wrote the Constitution? How old are you?

    The stupid is strong in you.
    why does the preamble start with 'we the people'???? you're projecting your own idiocy on others.

    just accept your defeat
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  5. #275 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act



    The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while they were conducting what would later be termed copwatching.[1] They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[2][3][4]
    AB-1591 was authored by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland, John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield,[5] it passed both Assembly (controlled by Democrats 42:38) and Senate (split 20:20) and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.
    No, it can't. California is bound to the requirements of the 2nd amendment, as all States are. It is either that, or it effectively leaves the Union (which is currently the condition of California, as it is no longer a State, since it no longer honors either the Constitution of the United States or even its own State constitution. California is no longer a republic. It is currently under an oligarchy form of government.)

  6. #276 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    Ronny Rayguns ended open carry in California dick bags


    Ill go get the FACTS
    yes, we know. reagan and the GOPs fear of the armed black man made them do something totally unconstitutional..............nobody is contesting that
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  7. #277 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,663 Times in 4,440 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    jimmymccready View Post
    When I was young a lifetime ago, carrying a long arm or a handgun at your waist in parts of CA or AK or OR or UT, etc., did not cause excitement or alarm.

    That is not the case now. The Constitution is a living document that must adapt and govern change in an ever morphing world.



    That's your opinion and you are sticking to it.
    That is not an opinion. It is the law. Unless they want to completely ban weapons, any jurisdiction can pass about any gun control law wanted and many states have done so (assault weapon bans, background checks, etc.). Those jurisdictions that don't have such laws is because they choose politically not to do so---it is not because the 2nd has been interpreted in a way to prevent these regulations.

  8. #278 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    that is not what the laws of the USA says


    to make a final decision on what comports with the constitution they have to use an interpetation of the constitution


    THEIR OWN!!!!!!
    not their own, moron. SCOTUS MUST USE THE MEANINGS THAT WE THE PEOPLE RATIFIED IT WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  9. #279 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is not an opinion. It is the law. Unless they want to completely ban weapons, any jurisdiction can pass about any gun control law wanted and many states have done so (assault weapon bans, background checks, etc.). Those jurisdictions that don't have such laws is because they choose politically not to do so---it is not because the 2nd has been interpreted in a way to prevent these regulations.
    no, it is BECAUSE the 2nd has been interpreted, incorrectly I will add, that people sheepishly believe 'shall not be infringed' actuallly means 'reasonable regulations'
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  10. #280 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  11. #281 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,996
    Thanks
    12,116
    Thanked 14,177 Times in 10,395 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    just one? if the USA drops a nuke on japan, would they surrender in WW2..............you lose, again.

    don't you ever get tired of the illogical fallacies you try to post to justify your idiocy?


    You just gave a “did happen”, not an “if/would”. What a fucking fool.

    “If/would”. Is make believe the best you have, idiot?

    Wait. Yes it is.

  12. #282 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,996
    Thanks
    12,116
    Thanked 14,177 Times in 10,395 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    why does the preamble start with 'we the people'???? you're projecting your own idiocy on others.

    just accept your defeat
    Yeah, YOU wrote the Constitution.

    Are you trying to best your forum Stupidest Post “vehicles cannot be necessary”?

  13. #283 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    12,526
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 8,341 Times in 5,714 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 374 Times in 355 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Why is it you people can't recognize the fact that Constitutional rights can be regulated, that no right, none, are absolute, ever one can be, and are, regulated, simple fact. Carrying long guns in public can be legally regulated

    please, you talking about the rule of law is like OJ talking about Domestic abuse rights

    Go play in one of evince's threads, more your speed
    This just In::: Trump indicted for living in liberals heads and not paying RENT

    C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network

    Trump Is Coming back to a White House Near you

  14. #284 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison




    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution. Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1] The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual "law", not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
    The case originated from the political and ideological rivalry between outgoing U.S. President John Adams, who espoused the pro-business and pro-national-government ideals of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party, and incoming President Thomas Jefferson, who led the Democratic-Republican Party and favored agriculture and decentralization.[2] Adams had lost the U.S. presidential election of 1800 to Jefferson, and in March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions in an attempt to frustrate Jefferson and his supporters in the Democratic-Republican Party.[3] The U.S. Senate quickly confirmed Adams's appointments, but upon Jefferson's inauguration two days later, a few of the new judges' commissions still had not been delivered.[3] Jefferson believed the commissions were void because they had not been delivered in time, and instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them.[4] One of the men whose commissions had not been delivered in time was William Marbury, a Maryland businessman who had been a strong supporter of Adams and the Federalists. In late 1801, after Madison had repeatedly refused to deliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission.[5]
    In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court held firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal, and secondly that it was normally proper for a court in such situations to order the government official in question to deliver the commission.[6] However, in Marbury's case, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Examining the law Congress had passed that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's, Marshall found that it had expanded the definition of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond what was originally set down in the U.S. Constitution.[7] Marshall then struck down the law, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution.[8] Because this meant the Court had no jurisdiction over the case, it could not issue the writ that Marbury had requested.
    your argument is dead racist assholes


    you are not the we

  15. The Following User Groans At evince For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (07-19-2019)

  16. #285 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post


    You just gave a “did happen”, not an “if/would”. What a fucking fool.

    “If/would”. Is make believe the best you have, idiot?

    Wait. Yes it is.
    you don't think that BEFORE they dropped that bomb, they weren't thinking if/would????? if you ignore that, you're monumentally idiotic and too stupid to be on the internet
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

Similar Threads

  1. Court: Texas can enforce more of 'sanctuary cities' law
    By Pappy Jones in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-26-2017, 05:04 AM
  2. APP - What if Texas just ignores the Supreme Court?
    By canceled.2021.3 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-01-2016, 10:18 AM
  3. Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law
    By Leonthecat in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-27-2016, 06:50 PM
  4. Tom DeLay conviction overturned by Texas court
    By StormX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-22-2013, 02:51 PM
  5. 'Next Bush' makes campaign filing in Texas
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-09-2012, 01:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •